You wrote in this thread https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%d7%90%d7%97%d7%a8%d7%99%d7%95%d7%aa-%d7%9e%d7%95%d7%9C-%d7%90%d7%A9%d7%9E%d7%94/ and in other columns as well, that it is reasonable to punish a person who stands at the head of a system for a disaster that happened within that system even if it is clear that he is not guilty, simply by virtue of being responsible. Your reasoning was that by doing so we would prevent cases of disasters in the system in the future (“so that they will see and fear”). That’s what I was asking about: it doesn’t sound reasonable to me to punish a person who did nothing wrong just so society can benefit from having fewer disasters. That sounds utilitarian and selfish. Isn’t that so?

*even if

Just as I feared. I’ll judge you favorably and assume you simply didn’t bother to read.

I did read, I read. This is the language of our master, may he live long: “And sometimes there is responsibility without any guilt at all, and that is in order to strengthen the consciousness of responsibility among officeholders in the future, and then responsibility is imposed on them for the sake of future education even without guilt.”
He said it but did not explain it. Does future education really justify a local injustice to the person being judged? Does the end justify the means?

I distinguished between responsibility and guilt and explained that punishment is imposed only for guilt. So if you read it, the situation is worse than I thought.
Indeed, there is room to impose responsibility even without guilt, for the public good. That is not an injustice. We demand all kinds of things from people for the public good. A soldier is required to die too, and that is also without any guilt.